It wasn't ruled unconstitutional until it was challenged. This would be in the form of a person or persons (in this case, two homosexual couples) filing suit against the state of California. The same thing happened in Loving v. Virginia.

Perhaps I would feel better if I acctually got to vote which justices can stand on the superme court, but I dont

Well, you do get to vote for the guy who nominates them, as well as the people who review them. : / It's not TOTALLY out of your hands.

I'm not sure I agree that the majority was happy to see segregation go. Maybe on a nation-wide average consensus; I really don't know about any other areas. But in the areas where the problem was rampant, I can't believe that was the case. And I'm not sure why religion playing a role matters. A belief is a belief, and the belief that segregation was right was a deeply held conviction, not much different than a religion for most people. And not much different from the belief that our society will deteriorate like a rotting wood if we allow gays to marry.

Obviously there are some differences. Racial discrimination is indeed ancient in a way that the gay rights movement is not... but that doesn't immediately disqualify the comparison. Besides, does that make it more acceptable to take it easy on gay rights? If history is any indication (the black civil rights movement included), the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If we shove something uncomfortable back into the closet (hurr hurr) then everyone will just forget all about it and pretend it never existed. That's not progress.

You don't shove it back into the closet and forget it, you keep arguing for it, championing it, and campaigning it as a cause. You don't have to choose between judicial activism and doing nothing, as I already said that's a false choice fallacy.

Change doesn't happen over night. It doesn't happen as soon as it would in a perfectly fair, just world. Societies take time to progress, liberalize, and evolve. Interfere with that process and what happens is unpredictable. It can become a wedge issue, a cultural divide, and an impasse which creates an unproductive political climate of divisiveness.

This move plays right into the Republican Party's hands: it's another example that adds to their narrative of judicial activism, liberal disdain for the opinion of the majority, and is especially damaging at a time when populism is one of the strongest political forces at work today.

You don't shove it back into the closet and forget it, you keep arguing for it, championing it, and campaigning it as a cause. You don't have to choose between judicial activism and doing nothing, as I already said that's a false choice fallacy.

Maybe my language was a little stronger than it should have been. I hope you'll forgive me; I've just been dying to use that analogy since I joined the thread. I actually don't consider it a false choice fallacy at all; you have the option that was taken, and you have a wide spectrum of other options that amount to basically nothing. That's how I see it; it is indeed, all or nothing.

It seems to me that people are waiting on the older generation to die off and take their prejudices with them. Only then will our society actually start to inch further along toward that perfectly accepting, tolerant society that so many people want. In my opinion, everything else, all the education and activism that you suggest, is just passing time until then.

I find it odd that it took 2 years to make this ruling rather then the supreme court stepping in when it first appeared on the ballet and noting that it was unconstitutional

I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, but I really don't think it's a matter of the CA Supreme Court snapping its fingers when they see something unconstitutional and ruling it so. Litigation takes weeks, if not months, to conclude in any court, let alone the Supreme Court - as it did in California. You have to go through the superior courts first, and if the decision is appealed, it's taken to the Courts of Appeal, and if it's appealed again, on then is it taken to the Supreme Court. [1]

I could dump a whole timeline of the whole Prop 22 - In re Marriage Cases - Prop 8 situation, but it's not as if people have been standing idle in the past two years. Litigation against Proposition 8 began the day after the election; and when the decision on Strauss v. Horton was made that upheld the passing of Proposition, the federal case Perry v. Schwarzenegger was launched to challenge that decision. The decision that was made on August 4th was the decision for this case.

As you see, nobody's been standing still. Litigation is a slow process, though.

You don't shove it back into the closet and forget it, you keep arguing for it, championing it, and campaigning it as a cause. You don't have to choose between judicial activism and doing nothing, as I already said that's a false choice fallacy.

I have to agree with Will here. Are you going to tell gays and lesbians who want to get married that they can continue championing the cause, and championing the cause, but no, they can't get married until who knows when? They're full United States citizens, and yet they can't get married like any other citizen, just because of their sexuality?

I don't see what's wrong with taking it to the courts. Taking up a case arguing for what they feel is rightfully theirs as American citizens in the state's judicial courts is a perfectly reasonable and valid avenue to see that change is championed.

Well, you do get to vote for the guy who nominates them, as well as the people who review them. : / It's not TOTALLY out of your hands.

I'm not sure I agree that the majority was happy to see segregation go. Maybe on a nation-wide average consensus; I really don't know about any other areas. But in the areas where the problem was rampant, I can't believe that was the case. And I'm not sure why religion playing a role matters. A belief is a belief, and the belief that segregation was right was a deeply held conviction, not much different than a religion for most people. And not much different from the belief that our society will deteriorate like a rotting wood if we allow gays to marry.

Obviously there are some differences. Racial discrimination is indeed ancient in a way that the gay rights movement is not... but that doesn't immediately disqualify the comparison. Besides, does that make it more acceptable to take it easy on gay rights? If history is any indication (the black civil rights movement included), the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If we shove something uncomfortable back into the closet (hurr hurr) then everyone will just forget all about it and pretend it never existed. That's not progress.

Sorry but no, thats not a choice. Choice as we've discussed many times before is the conscious selection of options. When it comes to justices all I can do is try to make my will known but its next to impossible for me to know if Im listened to. I dont get to make a conscious selection of the people nominated or chosen, other people do that and I think thats a problem for such a high standing position.

That said, changing it so that supreme court justices had to be voted on would just turn it into another group of elections once every few years where they tell you everything you want to hear and do next to none of it

I have to agree with Will here. Are you going to tell gays and lesbians who want to get married that they can continue championing the cause, and championing the cause, but no, they can't get married until who knows when? They're full United States citizens, and yet they can't get married like any other citizen, just because of their sexuality?

I don't see what's wrong with taking it to the courts. Taking up a case arguing for what they feel is rightfully theirs as American citizens in the state's judicial courts is a perfectly reasonable and valid avenue to see that change is championed.

You act like the only people who are abused by the marriage regulations in this country are the gays and lesbians; that's simply not true. We have laws on the books that provide people tangible benefits for marrying, what about people who don't want to marry? What if you're philosophically opposed to be constrained by a largely religious concept? What if you were born with no sex drive or interest in the opposite sex -- such people exist -- and instead choose a life of celibacy and live with the companionship of a close friend?

Right now we have laws on the books that encourage people to adopt certain lifestyles; our current regulations only benefit straight couples who choose to marry, and the gay marriage crowd is campaigning to be let into that exclusive 'club,' but it's not like when that happens the injustice goes away -- there's just more people benefiting from the lifestyle encouraging that goes on within our tax code and by giving advantages to legal marriage.

I could employ equally as trite emotional arguing here: aren't people who choose to live lives void of sexual experiences people too? Why are we treating priests as if they are less than human by not allowing them some sort of non-sexual civil union to pair with other people for the sake of sharing of basic needs and forming a meaningful social unit? People who choose not to have sex are people too, yet gay activists want an advantage over them, et cetera, so on and so forth.

The bottom line is, things aren't nearly as cut and dry as people are professing them to be or this situation would be resolved.

EDIT: Carry the logic one step further, if you're not making judgments about the marriage arrangements people take, why not let polygamy happen as well? Of course that would be a deafening blow to the health insurance system as people marry multiple spouses simply to share benefits, and it wracks all sorts of chaos on the tax system, but I'm sure you see my point (unless you think there's something inherently wrong about polygamy that isn't present in homosexuality, which I would disagree with you on).

EDIT2: Basically I'm saying the real problem in some people's opinion is that we recognize marriage as something government has business being involved in at all. If you're of that mindset, this certainly isn't a step in the right direction as it's just moving more people under the umbrella.

Actually, there are mainstream religions (Judaism is one, as is Episcopalianism) that allow the clergy to be married. In fact, there are certain duties ascribed specifically to the rabbi's wife.

I don't see anything wrong with celibate people wanting to (and being allowed to) get married 'for the benefits' (social, psychological, and economic) - there are nominally heterosexual seniors who do this all the time.

I fail to see how the laws prohibit nonsexual people to get married...is there some example you can cite? Or are you saying the state would deny a marriage license to, say, a catholic priest because his religion doesn't permit the clergy to marry? There is no prohibition to nonsexual couples enshrined in our laws to prevent them from getting married and enjoying the benefits a 'sexual' couple would have. As long as, of course, they aren't of the same gender.

Actually, there are mainstream religions (Judaism is one, as is Episcopalianism) that allow the clergy to be married. In fact, there are certain duties ascribed specifically to the rabbi's wife.

I don't see anything wrong with celibate people wanting to (and being allowed to) get married 'for the benefits' (social, psychological, and economic) - there are nominally heterosexual seniors who do this all the time.

I understand you're pointing out exceptions to the things I listed, but I think you're still missing the point. Our society is currently set up in a such a way that it encourages straight people to get married by financial benefits; gay activists want homosexuals included in that umbrella. I guess it comes down to this fundamental question: do you think it's right to encourage people to get married by offering them the chance to pay less taxes and share health insurance benefits, plus receive a variety of other conveniences if they do?

It seems like advocates of gay marriage are arguing that homosexuals are being discriminated against by the current policy -- I'm saying they're not the only ones who have to pay more taxes because of the lifestyle choices they make, and it seems very hypocritical of them to be arguing for their addition to that club of benefits, where they would essentially join the other "tax-preferred lifestyles" in receiving essentially 'state sponsorship" for their choices.

As an option, civil unions (one of the legal semi-alternatives to marriage, I believe) don't carry the same recognition or offer the same kind of legal benefits that a marriage has, which is why (I believe) same-sex marriage is being fought for. If you're going to carry the argument into the fundamentals of marriage being the problem, that is another discussion entirely, which I won't debate here for the sake of not carrying the thread off-topic.

My point, however, wasn't that gays and lesbians are the only group(s) abused by marriage regulations (which is outside the realm of this thread). If a woman wants to marry her female partner, for whatever reason, why does the law forbid her this that could be interpreted to be what is a fundamental right to other individuals in opposite-sex couples, just because she is a woman?

If she, or a similar individual or couple, or an activist group that champions that cause, chooses to sue the state of California for impinging on her civil right to marry instead of choosing to act through legislation, I don't see why that's a "wrong" route to take. Sure, it might not be the best route, but if she wants to make the change happen sooner than later and believes that waiting for that change to happen naturally is too slow a process, that's her choice. We can't know the ripples that will come of any action, and I don't believe that there is a black or white "right" and "wrong" in this case, either.

As for the rest - the institution of marriage v. other lifestyles v. government intervention - that's an entire other topic, which you're welcome to make a new thread to discuss.

Civil unions have the exact same benefits as marriage in the majority of cases. This was hashed out in another same-sex marriage thread a few pages back if you wanna dig up the information. People still seem to be against it regardless (typically it invokes all sorts of comparisons to the separate but equal phrasing -- which I think is kind of tone deaf and a poor comparison).

EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, I think in the United States same-sex couples who enter civil unions still have to file separately for federal taxes--but I'm not sure. That's how it was in California.

Interesting discussion turn. I think the hatred of gay marriage, if it can be called that, comes from American societies heavy interest in sex. Today its all about sex while in the civil war two men coud sleep in the same bed and people would think of things as more in a status way then a sexual way.

Perhaps because of our sexually charged society then thats why marriage is always looked down on? Afterall it is the act that most religions and anti-gay individuals are against

Civil unions have the exact same benefits as marriage in the majority of cases.

First, short of a national policy, what we have are a patchwork of state laws that don't always get along. As I understand it, California does not have civil unions. It has domestic partnerships. These are more precisely a third tier of recognition, below marriage and below civil unions. They do not confer "the exact same benefits" as either. Or if this is correct... Where they do now, it's becasuse they have become umm, marriage? http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16430

* The California Supreme Court ruled on May 15, 2008 that same sex couples have the right to marry in California. Proposition 8, which limits marriage to one man and one woman, was passed on November 4, 2008. The decision was appealed...

Jude, I think you mentioned Martin Luther King as an example of someone who spoke for his cause to persuade people? He did some speaking, yes. He also did a fair amount of shouting. He marched on Washington. He ended up getting killed. He set a ball rolling that changed the atmosphere of debate so much that fewer people who dislike what he accomplished, dare say so openly. We've come to a place where although some people continue fuming and whispering, it's widely recognized that this is probably a better place. For all I know, you might see the fact that some people still resist that as proof that it came too soon; I don't know. I'll take it over the status quo, because I don't see a whole lot of give and take if people had not taken risks.

I do notice a kind of historical back and forth. When the country stops policing race tightly, it seems to police gender more in ways. When slavery ended and then the US moved into increasingly diverse Western areas, White women were warned constantly about the "uncontrollable sexual urges" of the Blacks, Chinese, and Hawaiians. After the civil rights movement, we are having this wave of reactionary rhetoric about first "masculinist women" who dare to play with leather, and again gay people who allegedly 'threaten' "family" values. What next? Maybe race again? It goes round and around. The Republicans hiss whether they're winning ("defense of family/marriage") or losing ("activism and animal marriages"). Nothing new there, either. I don't see the quiet persuasion bringing us to a better place, without policy choices to back it up. A policy choice may not be forever (no matter whether it's made in the name of democracy, republic, or law), but I'd rather have a fair one.

In the cases of both race and sexual orientation, those most in favor of the status quo are not using rational argument. Perhaps we can partly thank our visionaries, including Dr. King, that the atmosphere is at least not ripe for them to harp on what they stand to lose materially (just for one example, an edge in those California unemployment benefits). They reduced themselves to fussing about lost pride when the Proposition only denied pride of place to their opponents. In such an atmosphere, they had to explain what the state, not they, would gain from enforcing a separate language. One thing that the court judgment did fairly well, is to point out that arguments presented in support of Proposition 8 involved dramatic claims about "difference" and "nature" but Proposition 8 did not invite voters to stand up behind any such discrimination. The science that we have doesn't support such bases, either.

The discriminatory, moralizing rhetoric may connect somewhat with the populist lowest common denominator, as you like (although I suspect the economy and even the war(s) are much more important). A reasonable judge, like other setters of policy, can't always wait for the populace to survey just so. In the meantime, the issue goes on playing and that level of government goes on dealing/paying with the effects too. The evidence suggests same-sex couples are doing roughly similar to other couples. So yes, until/unless we wake up and undo privilege for couples period. I would probably agree we should... I'm not sure it links up with the rest of your argument here... The case didn't challenge the doctrine of singular marriage itself -- now that would have taken some activism.

Interesting discussion turn. I think the hatred of gay marriage, if it can be called that, comes from American societies heavy interest in sex. Today its all about sex while in the civil war two men coud sleep in the same bed and people would think of things as more in a status way then a sexual way.

Perhaps because of our sexually charged society then thats why marriage is always looked down on? Afterall it is the act that most religions and anti-gay individuals are against

Don't know about the civil war aspect, but the fact that marriage leads to 'condoned sex' was the argument that the courts had to deal with in Loving v. VA.

Since we're talking about Gay Marriage, I'd just like to put this woman out there..this deals with New Hampshire, rather than California, though..but still..she's speaking about repealing NH Gay marriage bill:

No not exactly. Think aboutit, for this to be put in place it would have already had to have been reviewed right?

Not by a court. It makes them into a populist game and extremely susceptible to emotion rather than logic and reason. Our laws must be based on - and judged by - logic and reason, not popular vote.

Quote

WHy wasnt this ruled unconstitutional 2 years ago when the bill was first put on the ballet or shortly after it was voted on?

Because the court does not 'rule a law unconstitutional' at the snap of its fingers. Rather, when they are presented with a law, it is their responsibility to see if that law conflicts with the Constitution, and if so, they will choose not to apply that law in that and future rulings.

Quote

I find it odd that it took 2 years to make this ruling rather then the supreme court stepping in when it first appeared on the ballet and noting that it was unconstitutional

It's not odd at all, but I will request that before making such claims, you at least look up how laws are ruled unconstitutional. It does your argument no credit to make statements like this.

Quote

Its almost like the minority can hold the majority hostage if that makes any sense

Allowing a majority vote of laws is asking to have the issue be politicized and driven by fear and emotion rather than reason and logic. Whether the Earth orbits the Sun is not up for vote. That this proposition was bigoted and hateful is demonstrable through logic and reason, and had no place being up for vote.

Quote

Perhaps I would feel better if I acctually got to vote which justices can stand on the superme court, but I dont

Do you have any idea how much damage that is already doing in areas where the judicial system is already politicized like that? Companies buy judicial rulings by taking the highly complex rulings they judge on, picking out the one they can twist into the worst possible light by stripping out valuable context, and then slam them hard until the judge either 'behaves' or gets voted out.

No thank you.

Truth needs to stand the test of time and last longer than majority consensus.

I really don't care what you do in your bedroom but when you slap it in my face then demand 'special' (their word, not mine) privileges, I have an issue. If you want to be treated differently because of your bedroom activities, go look somewhere else for sympathy because I'm tired of hearing about it.

Equal is the word they are looking for. o3o Gays deserve Equal rights in everything, including Marriage.

Hmm...I wasnt born at the time, so I wouldn't know..but I wonder if Black people went through this as well when demanding Civil rights?...Of course, this isn't THAT extreme..(Haven't heard of Gays being segregated or blasted with fire hoses. O_o) but still..

I really don't care what you do in your bedroom but when you slap it in my face then demand 'special' (their word, not mine) privileges, I have an issue. If you want to be treated differently because of your bedroom activities, go look somewhere else for sympathy because I'm tired of hearing about it.

I'm not sure I understand. Could you elaborate on what kinds of "special" privileges you're referring to? And maybe you could tell me how it's inappropriate to be "slapped in the face" with the sexual activities of gay couples, when we're slapped in the face with references to hetero sex every time we turn around?